First let me start by saying there are many definitions of "art" and it happens to be one of those concepts that doesn't have a concrete definition and with that I would think that saying "video games are art" or "video games are not art" is a mere opinion and that is why it is debated. Film critic Roger Ebert stated on his blog that "video games can never be art". It can never be an art form because it is a "game" like chess or poker. Depending on your definition of art some could argue that chess and poker can be art too. Ebert's argument is basically that no video game producer will ever be on the same level as novelist, poets, or filmmakers. Personally, I find Ebert's argument to be weak. Video game critic, Adam Sessler, partly agrees with Ebert but he has a much stronger argument in his video response on g4tv.com. He believes that art needs to be "static" and be the same to everybody. Take a painting or a film for example; It is the same to everybody while it is being looked at. It never changes and it is there for the audience to consume and interpret in their own way. With a video game you, the player or audience, alter the environment and the protagonist which creates a different experience for every person that plays. This is where things get complicated. If a painting can be interpreted in different ways by each individual of the audience, how is that different from each individual's experience with a video game? There are obvious reasons but is it enough to dismiss video games as art? Sessler goes on to talk about why Ebert's argument is weak and the main reason being that he has never played a video game. That makes me very hesitant to believe his argument, but what Sessler has to say is very important to the question at hand. I don't believe there is a straight answer to this question and that it will be debated for a while. Whether video games are art or not, I would suggest that you watch a couple of game-play videos below. If they are not a form of art I think that this is as close as anybody's going to get to making video games art.
Limbo is a downloadable arcade game for the Xbox 360. It is about a boy in search for his sister. There is no dialogue but it is visually pleasing just to watch the game. I recommend watching 5:41 to 7:00 in the video. Braid is another downloadable game which is about a guy in search for his princess. With little text this game offers a deep but simple story with a surprise twist at the end. Shadow of the Colossus is a game that came out for the Play Station 2 which features a guy in a strange land that needs to battle against nine massive giants. It's rich and detailed environments and giant creatures puts this game pretty high up on the "artistic" scale.
Overview
First let me start by saying there are many definitions of "art" and it happens to be one of those concepts that doesn't have a concrete definition and with that I would think that saying "video games are art" or "video games are not art" is a mere opinion and that is why it is debated. Film critic Roger Ebert stated on his blog that "video games can never be art". It can never be an art form because it is a "game" like chess or poker. Depending on your definition of art some could argue that chess and poker can be art too. Ebert's argument is basically that no video game producer will ever be on the same level as novelist, poets, or filmmakers. Personally, I find Ebert's argument to be weak. Video game critic, Adam Sessler, partly agrees with Ebert but he has a much stronger argument in his video response on g4tv.com. He believes that art needs to be "static" and be the same to everybody. Take a painting or a film for example; It is the same to everybody while it is being looked at. It never changes and it is there for the audience to consume and interpret in their own way. With a video game you, the player or audience, alter the environment and the protagonist which creates a different experience for every person that plays. This is where things get complicated. If a painting can be interpreted in different ways by each individual of the audience, how is that different from each individual's experience with a video game? There are obvious reasons but is it enough to dismiss video games as art? Sessler goes on to talk about why Ebert's argument is weak and the main reason being that he has never played a video game. That makes me very hesitant to believe his argument, but what Sessler has to say is very important to the question at hand. I don't believe there is a straight answer to this question and that it will be debated for a while. Whether video games are art or not, I would suggest that you watch a couple of game-play videos below. If they are not a form of art I think that this is as close as anybody's going to get to making video games art.Limbo is a downloadable arcade game for the Xbox 360. It is about a boy in search for his sister. There is no dialogue but it is visually pleasing just to watch the game. I recommend watching 5:41 to 7:00 in the video.
Braid is another downloadable game which is about a guy in search for his princess. With little text this game offers a deep but simple story with a surprise twist at the end.
Shadow of the Colossus is a game that came out for the Play Station 2 which features a guy in a strange land that needs to battle against nine massive giants. It's rich and detailed environments and giant creatures puts this game pretty high up on the "artistic" scale.
For more video games that might be considered art I would check out IGN's "Top 10 Tuesday: Games as Art: The video games that prove Roger Ebert wrong". (nfoltz).
History
(There is no text here yet.)
Opinion
(There is no text here yet.)
Future Trends?
(There is no text here yet.)